TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 667X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. The matter came up for disposal on 6-2-1998. A three-Judge Bench of this Court disposed of SLPs (C) Nos. 27275-77 of 1995 providing that those employees who had completed five years' continuous service should be considered for regularisation in accordance with the terms of GOMs No. 212 dated 22.4.1994. Thereafter, it appears that some other employees who are parties in the appeals in hand, moved the High Court for their regularisation. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in its order quoted the operative part of the order passed by this Court dated 6.2.1998 which provided that those employees who had completed five years' continuous service and fulfil other conditions laid down in GOMs No. 212/22-4-1994 would be con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order passed on the date. ( 5. ) The Corporation, through the Managing Director of the Corporation, the State Government and some others preferred appeal against the order passed by the Single Judge disposing of the contempt matter. The Division Bench while dealing with the matter observed that once a direction was given to regularise the employees, the Corporation had no option but to regularise the services of the employees. It was also observed that the appeal against the order passed by the Contempt Judge was not maintainable. We, however, find that the appellate order does not deal with the aspect as to whether the Contempt Judge was competent or had the jurisdiction at all to issue directions in the contempt petition to the aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of the employees. It is submitted that since no such sanctioned posts were available, therefore, their request for regularisation was turned down which is in accordance with the judgment of this Court as well as the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. It further submitted that the fact that the regularisation could be made only against the sanctioned posts and that such posts were not available, is substantiated by the direction given by the learned Contempt Judge to the authorities and the State Government to sanction the necessary posts against which the employee petitioners could be regularised. ( 7. ) On the basis of what has been indicated above, the first submission is that there is no violation of the order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... State have filed appeals directly against the order passed by the learned Judge disposing of contempt matter, directing the authorities and the State Government to sanction the posts. No such direction could be given in contempt proceedings. ( 9. ) Insofar as the appeals against the order passed by the Division Bench in the writ appeals are concerned, it is rightly submitted that there is no merit in those appeals. It is immaterial as to whether those appeals have been dismissed on the ground of delay or on merits. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider the regularisation of the employees cannot be faulted with. Such an order was passed in view of the order of this Court passed on 6.2.1998, in the matter relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
